Jump to content

Suffolk Rob

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

132 profile views
  1. Pretty sure that's right too. Seem to remember reading at the time of his tie up with Revolution that examples of his work were to be found in the Farish range Rob
  2. I normally adopt a read and don't write policy when topics get onto the subject of price but it does seem clear in my opinion that Bachmann are making reasonable decisions on RRP on a model by model basis. I'm not a 4mm modeler and the J94 appears to cost more than in it's previous inclination but, as Andy and others have pointed out, there are enhancements ( I think) and an understanding from Bachmann that they actually need to turn a profit to stay in business. On the other hand the clay wagons seem very competitively priced to me, and the Class 17 (my interest is N) is, give or take a few quid, the same price as advertised when launched at TINGS more years ago than I can remember now and very competitively priced in the N gauge market There's a significant increase in RRP for the mermaid too. I suspect that the common factor with the J94 is that models actually appeared under the former brand and that limited understanding of profit margins, or dare I say profit full stop, came into play when the previous RRP was set. We all have a view on price but in my opinion, a fair appraisal needs to come from a look across the whole EFE range rather than any particular model. Fully appreciate that there will be other views out there that are equally valid, and quite probably better informed than my own. Rob
  3. Thank you for explaining it all Nigel, I think I've got both cause and solution clear in my mind now thanks to you. Cheers Rob
  4. Thank you Nigel. I'm sure the juicer is only set to 2 amps looking at the instructions. If I'm intending to only use on 1 point I may well switch to a mono juicer I also have which I believe only has the 2 amp option. Assuming I'm ballasting and painting rail sides then I think I'm pushing my luck on relying just on blade contact but also, if I understand correctly, using a unifrog means any dirt related issue leading to resistance can only occur at the frog. As this is a bigger, non moving part I assume this would not be terminal for the point but would it be damaging to the loco? I also assume I can mitigate by ensuring I clean the top of the frog before any and all running sessions As I understand, what you are saying is that, if I rely on a mechanical switch for the electrofrog, I need to be sure the throw of the seep is clear enough to switch polarity and also that there is a paint free area where blade contacts rail as well as a further safeguard and only if I have an instance of inadequate throw of the point motor (as in switches point but not the polarity) and dirt related resistance should I have a repeat? I'm pretty sure part of my problem was caused by not understanding this last point thinking that the frog switching took care of this. Probably should have paid more attention in Physics! Thank you again, I'm quickly learning that there is a lot more to this DCC malarkey than plugging in 2 wires!
  5. Firstly an apology as I may use the wrong terminology. I have a small DCC layout and use a standard powercab. The layout consists of a point to 2 sidings with a kick- back from one of them. Essentially think exactly the same track plan as Neil's Shell Island. The points are peco N code 55 elecrofrog and are used as supplied. Layout worked absolutely fine using seep motors with polarity switch for some time.Standard Gaugemaster accessory decoders were used.Due to small size of layout track and point motors fed from same Bus. Due to inconsistency with switching I disconnected the wires to frogs from point motor and fitted a Tam valley duel frog juicer. Worked fine for a couple of days then smoke emitted from both points within a couple of hours of each other where blades touch the outside running rails. Point motors and frog juicer continue to work but heat has disfigured tie bar rendering the points inoperable. Dug up and replaced one of the points and shortly afterwards, the same thing happened again. As I understand it, a frog juicer recognises a short and switches polarity before running is affected (but the short still occurs if only momentarily) and the only explanation I can come up with is the short generated enough heat, possibly with help from a bit of stray static grass between blade and rail to disfigure the plastic in the tie bar and this occurs because in a code 55 electrofrog point, frog and switch blades are not isolated from each other. Never had this problem on DC but assume that' the heat is due to the different current/ voltage (or whatever) when now using DCC? I've now ripped up all track to re-lay and wanted a bit of advice to avoid the same problem reoccurring. I think I have the following options but wanted to check I've reached the correct conclusions. Firstly, for one of the points I am now using a unifrog point. From what I can see the frog on these is entirely separate to the blades which are bonded to the running rails- as such the short where blades touch running rails cannot occur- do I have this right? For reasons of space I cannot use a unifrog for the other point. I need to use a y point which is not available as unifrog. I think I have two options. I could, as read on other threads, cut the rails between frog and blades and solder a wire to bond blades to outside rails- frankly beyond my soldering capability. I think this only leaves me with option 2. revert to switching polarity using the seep motor which makes the changing of polarity mechanical rather than electronic and avoids the problem caused by the juicer needing a short to occur before it reacts? I should also add that all rails leading from both frogs had isolating rail joiners fitted but would be grateful if anyone better informed than me could confirm my thinking and possible solutions. Thanks Rob
  6. Wow, is it really 50 yrs? My introduction was, like many, the GP tank. LMS maroon in my case. I recall the choice then was SR Green, LNER Green and there was also the 94xx. Can't remember the exact year but the Black 5 had just been introduced. I wanted the 94xx but was bribed by my dad with the promise of a Black 5 for Christmas. The first step change for me was the (I think) early 80s when the 47 appeared, closely followed by 37, 20 and HST and could start to collect the real locos I could see on the real railway. Like many I had a break from model railways until I randomly purchased Model Rail, sometime in the early 2000s containing an article by Ben Ando on detailing the newly reintroduced 37/4. Found myself purchasing "Highland Region" and, whilst still stretched to fit the chassis, the wheel profile and running quality was a world away from my old blue one- that was the next step change for me. Not lost on me that the man who unknowingly prompted my return to N and Farish is now getting a big slice of my N gauge spending money! Last step change for me was when Bachmann began to replace the old toolings to give us the new Diesels. Many still not perfect from what I read on here but really moved N (with a nod to the push from Dapol's competition ) into the 21st century. Thank you Andy, you inspired me to knock off working from home early and take a trip down memory lane looking at some of those early models that I still have in the loft. Really bought home how far N and Farish has moved on, apart from those couplings and, even there, NEM sockets provide much easier options. I would have attempted to post some pictures but was told in no uncertain terms that I "wasn't bringing all that old rubbish downstairs". Some things haven't changed in the 50 years of Farish N! Rob
  7. I seem to have gone for the same ones as Ben for similar reasons. Would also be v interested in the Mk 2s in these liveries and the Scotrail livery in the main Dapol range. Whilst doing so an HST seems to have fallen into my basket too! If these Dapol commissions continue to sell well, might I suggest the new Scotrail 153 for consideration? Thanks from me too for producing these Rob
  8. The other piece of tooling that is out there somewhere but doesn't appear to have been mentioned is the n gauge mermaid. Clearly it appears no more likely that DJM ever owned it than any of the others mentioned. I purchased a couple as the first DJM product in N, as much as anything to see whether the then hype was justified. At the time I thought it the best small N wagon I had seen, but understand from those better qualified on here that it is not quite "the definitive mermaid" Despite that it has, I think, only been produced in black and dutch so might be interesting to the right concern at the right price? Rob
  9. Suffolk Rob

    Class 26

    Both my Blue and Railfreight came with plough for one end each- think that's due to having to remove the NEM "box" to fit so one for each end would prevent coupling to anything My blue one even came with the indicator disks it lost on refurb! Disks& plough all supplied painted
  10. Suffolk Rob

    Class 26

    Mine arrived this afternoon and, whilst not 100% sure, the Blue does look much better to me than on the earlier releases. I don't have a 26 with the previous factory blue any more but 26024 looks to have a very similar shade to a Dapol 22 and Farish 37 that I do have to hand. On the rolling road, running well and no lighting issues. Not had the body off yet and sorry, not able to take photos at the moment. The 26 to me sums up the frustration of Dapol. Grateful they produced a model that Farish probably never would have done that I'd wanted since I'd bodged a minitrix 27 into one (badly) around 1980. More variants tooled for than I might have reasonably expected in N but strangely (to me anyway) not the tablet catcher recess required for a transition era 26/1. Livery errors such as the cantrail stripes that a quick review of the internet would have shown up. Not a Dapol basher, 26024 takes my Dapol 26s into double figures. They produce some great models but could be even better with just a bit more care. Rob
  11. As there are a number of knowledgeable class 50 experts on this thread I'm hoping to get some livery advice. I'm looking for a model suitable to run on a small china clay plank, ideally in a livery/name combination that could have been seen with both clayhoods and CDAs- my research seems to indicate that the key date for the main swop from hoods to CDAs was Feb88 with my source being John Vaughan's china clay books. I'm not so much looking for an example that was definitely seen on such duties but would ideally like an example that could quite plausibly have been seen on them Am I right to think that such a class 50 would be most likely to be a Plymouth allocated example on a running in turn or light duties? I think I've already identified that both the Large Logo and NSE liveried examples would be suitable, possibly with a new name/number but I'm finding myself more and more drawn to the black-roofed 50049. I understand that this represents 50049 in recent preservation livery but, looking at pictures of, for example, 50003 in its 80s incarnation of the livery, the key elements of the livery, roof red buffer beam and cantrail stripe seem to be the same. Can anyone tell me if it is as simple as renumbering/naming to accurately portray a 80s black roof example? In searching for pictures of black roof examples, I find plenty of pictures from 1987 so fine for the hoods, but nothing between then and summer/autumn 88 when every black roof 50 I have identified seems to have been repainted into NSE livery. I've searched a number of class 50 sites but haven't located any with clear dates for livery changes. I did find a picture of 50003 with the black roof with a caption of 1989 but many more dated 1988 with it in NSE so I'm assuming the caption date of 1989 must be wrong. Is anybody able to point me to a site that gives reliable dates for livery changes or able to tell me of a black-roofed example that would have retained that livery post Feb 88, even if only for a couple of months. Thanks in advance Rob
  12. I was going to E mail/PM Mike & Ben privately about this but thought public thanks was more appropriate. I received my parcel on Friday and was disappointed to find it only contained 1 wagon rather than the 2 I ordered. I E-mailed Revolution expecting to wait a few days to hear anything but came home this evening to find that the second wagon had arrived with an (unnecessary but appreciated) apology from Ben. For two Guys who do this in their spare time for no gain other than getting models for their layouts (as well as ours) that they were unlikely to see otherwise it really stuck me as fantastic customer service to resolve the issue in 3 days Thank you Ben and Mike, both for the exemplary customer service and for yet another fantastic model. Rob
  13. The Sleeper to Fort William is one of those things on my "must do it one day list" but I've always wondered how it can be anywhere near an economically viable service to run. I'm guessing that 2 sleepers accomodate 40-50 passengers max and randomly selecting a date this week, the website suggests a fare of £135 (and I'm sure there are cheaper fares if I searched more thoroughly) so this suggests a maximim income from any service of well below £10K. I would have no idea of the costs of running any service on the railway and there is a fair amount of shared cost with the Inverness and Aberdeen portions but the sleeper must be one of most expensive operations on the railway- staff, locos etc Not trying to make any political point and wholely subscribe to the view that the value of services in the Highlands should not be judged by profit alone, just mystified why any private concern would take it on without significant contractual guarentees (which it could of course be argued that SERCO have and are considering activating) and genuinely interested in the broad cost of running such a service Rob
  14. Hi Ben Fantastic looking models- well done. Sadly my orders are all in batch 2 so patience is the order of the day but I've just been into my account to see how I pay my balance on them and can't work out how. Am I missing something or just getting ahead of myself? Looking forward to your next announcement with interest Rob
  15. Well I enjoyed it for what it was. It was never going to be finescale modelling and capturing a "general" audience is more about the scale of the challenge than the actual task itself so "the Victorians couldn't" is a better selling point than "the Highland didn't want anyone else having access to Inverness". As with any program that follows a group of people, everyone's going to have some individuals they took to more readily than others, I certainly did but don't see this forum as the place for those views, especially when, as far as I know, they could well be one of you! Will keep watching as I now really want to know if they succeed. For me the right sort of telly for Sunday night, much better than gritty depressing realism when I've got Monday to look forward to! Rob
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.